Starting Churches

[JohnH]

3. No, the New Testament model is for evangelism and new congregations to be related to existing congregations and existing leadership, not for people to go off and do their own thing.

The early Anabaptists consistently did not follow this principle, and indeed that was the Catholic Church's (or the Reformed churches') chiefest complaint.

They had no interest in apostolic succession or needing the "blessing" of an existing church. They just got together, had a meeting, and then had the absolute audacity to baptise one another.

[JohnH]

Our congregation has started 4 others that I know of. (One of which started just before we became members.)

Our two adult sons are members of one that started without any of our ministers going along with the new group. They struggled for some years, but are now well established. We were involved with the next one, where one of our ministers went with the group. We went back to the 'mother church' after 6 months, mainly due to finding out that there was no intention of ever having adult Bible study classes on Sundays. Later, we were involved in an attempt to start another congregation, initially with the first push and blessing of our leadership. Then, when the head pastor found out that we were 'rolling back' the guidelines (to a more conservative standard from a few years prior), he withdrew his support, and so it fizzled.

An obvious question is what gave the original congregation its authority to start in the first place. It is interesting to observe a congregation that starts off composed of entirely people who left the Amish who seemingly "self-ordained", who then go ahead and set up episcopal-style structures where they think it's important that they somehow bless any outreach works.

[ohio jones]

3. No, the New Testament model is for evangelism and new congregations to be related to existing congregations and existing leadership, not for people to go off and do their own thing.

The early Anabaptists consistently did not follow this principle, and indeed that was the Catholic Church's (or the Reformed churches') chiefest complaint.

They had no interest in apostolic succession or needing the "blessing" of an existing church. They just got together, had a meeting, and then had the absolute audacity to baptise one another.

That may be a reasonable summary of the 1/21/1525 Zürich baptisms. But from then on, including the Zollikon baptisms later that week, the baptisms were generally conducted by leaders who had previously been baptized within the movement. The polygenesis theory suggests there might have been others, but I'm not aware of documentation of specific cases.

Schleitheim, for example, says that baptism shall be given "to all those who with this significance request it of us [an assumption of existing leadership] and demand it for themselves" not "perform it themselves."

[JohnH]

That may be a reasonable summary of the 1/21/1525 Zürich baptisms. But from then on, including the Zollikon baptisms later that week, the baptisms were generally conducted by leaders who had previously been baptized within the movement. The polygenesis theory suggests there might have been others, but I'm not aware of documentation of specific cases.

Schleitheim, for example, says that baptism shall be given "to all those who with this significance request it of us [an assumption of existing leadership] and demand it for themselves" not "perform it themselves."

What made them uniquely qualified to ordain themselves, and what makes others not qualified to do the same? That's kind of what I'm getting at.

[mike]

3. No, the New Testament model is for evangelism and new congregations to be related to existing congregations and existing leadership, not for people to go off and do their own thing.

The early Anabaptists consistently did not follow this principle, and indeed that was the Catholic Church's (or the Reformed churches') chiefest complaint.

They had no interest in apostolic succession or needing the "blessing" of an existing church. They just got together, had a meeting, and then had the absolute audacity to baptise one another.

And of course modern conservative Mennonites who left the big conferences and established break-away groups like ken's church, went off and did their own thing. I don't really know whether those who left made sure to maintain the proper succession/chain of authority.

25 years ago or so, while I was dating, my girlfriend's family was with a new church plant started by the church Edsel Burdge is a member of, which practices congregational church government. When my father in law was ordained at the new church, at first the elder of Edsel's church did not even want to be present at the ordination, because their guiding principle was that the congregation must ordain its own elders. He did consent to speak at the ordination, but he would not perform the ceremony. The charges and laying on of hands were done by lay brothers of the new congregation. My father in law's church, and the other churches it has founded over the years, all operate by this principle, which would be the opposite of the typical Mennonite view that there must be a proper chain of succession (ordinations must be done by bishops who were ordained by other bishops, etc.) for leadership to be legitimate.

That's essentially the view I've held of church leadership my entire adult life, and having been in a traditionally structured Mennonite conference for the past four years now has been quite interesting.

[R7ehr]

And of course modern conservative Mennonites who left the big conferences and established break-away groups like ken's church, went off and did their own thing. I don't really know whether those who left made sure to maintain the proper succession/chain of authority.

My home church was founded in 1950 by leaving the Pacific Coast Mennonite Conference. This new church was led by a minister in a P.C.M.C. church. This minister felt that it was important to have the blessing and permission of the P.C.M.C., and consequently eventually got that from them. I've seen the letter from P.C.M.C.

[mike]

And of course modern conservative Mennonites who left the big conferences and established break-away groups like ken's church, went off and did their own thing. I don't really know whether those who left made sure to maintain the proper succession/chain of authority.

My home church was founded in 1950 by leaving the Pacific Coast Mennonite Conference. This new church was led by a minister in a P.C.M.C. church. This minister felt that it was important to have the blessing and permission of the P.C.M.C., and consequently eventually got that from them. I've seen the letter from P.C.M.C.

Why did he feel that this was important? Would you agree that it was important?

[ken_sylvania]

3. No, the New Testament model is for evangelism and new congregations to be related to existing congregations and existing leadership, not for people to go off and do their own thing.

What is the New Testament evidence that new congregations should be related to existing congregations and leadership organizationally (not just related by their common faith)?

How does this statement differ from the view of the Catholic church, which has the position, I think, that the Church traces its organizational roots back to Peter and the early church?

Understand this is an opinion that I hold relatively loosely because it's an observation of patterns and practice rather than a "thus saith the Lord."
I think we see new congregations forming in two ways in the NT - either because of believers moving to new areas due to persecution or financial reasons, or because of persons "sent" by and under the direction of an existing congregation. We don't see individuals going out on their own to start new congregations. I also think the record indicates that the newly formed congregations expected, respected and accepted oversight from the apostles and elders at Jerusalem.

I'm not suggesting I think there needs to be a denominational hierarchy tying everything together and I can appreciate the more ad-hoc nature of Mennonite church structure from the 16th century although it also had its fair share of flaws.

[ken_sylvania]

That may be a reasonable summary of the 1/21/1525 Zürich baptisms. But from then on, including the Zollikon baptisms later that week, the baptisms were generally conducted by leaders who had previously been baptized within the movement. The polygenesis theory suggests there might have been others, but I'm not aware of documentation of specific cases.

Schleitheim, for example, says that baptism shall be given "to all those who with this significance request it of us [an assumption of existing leadership] and demand it for themselves" not "perform it themselves."

What made them uniquely qualified to ordain themselves, and what makes others not qualified to do the same? That's kind of what I'm getting at.

What made them uniquely qualified to ordain themselves was that there was no other qualified person available.

[ken_sylvania]

3. No, the New Testament model is for evangelism and new congregations to be related to existing congregations and existing leadership, not for people to go off and do their own thing.

The early Anabaptists consistently did not follow this principle, and indeed that was the Catholic Church's (or the Reformed churches') chiefest complaint.

They had no interest in apostolic succession or needing the "blessing" of an existing church. They just got together, had a meeting, and then had the absolute audacity to baptise one another.

To be sure, that's not an accurate statement of fact, but maybe you don't care about being accurate.

The record indicates that Grebel, Blaurock and others wanted to stay with the existing church as long as it would look to the Word of God for direction. The January 1525 baptisms were a response to a council decree mandating infant baptism and another forbidding the Bible study meetings. They didn't "just" get together, have a meeting, and baptize one another.